Parashat Ki Tetzei begins with the laws of eshet yifat toar (אשת יפת תואר), a halakha which allows Israelite men sent to war to take captive wives from an enemy nation. According to many classical commentaries, during the time of the Torah these women were strategically “dolled up” and sent to the battlefield as part of a diversion tactic. They essentially played prostitutes in order to distract the Israelite men from fighting and to achieve an easy victory for their nation. Especially after the sin of Ba’al Pe’or in Bamidbar, inspired by Balaam - in which the women of Midian and Moab succeeded in tempting Jewish men towards illicit sexual relations and idolatry - one would expect the Torah to be extra vigilant about entering into any form of contact with other nations. The halakha here of eshet yifat toar seems to be a concession to human nature. While perhaps necessary in order to avoid overly frustrating the Israelite men heading to war, this halakha is also out of character in light of certain other admonitions throughout the parasha which seem to express a more guarded relationship with other nations.
Devarim 23:4 states: לא יבא עמוני ומואבי בקהל ה’ גם דור עשירי לא יבא להם בקהל ה’ עד עולם. “An Ammonite and a Moabite shall not enter into the community/covenant of God! Even until the tenth generation, they shall not enter the community/covenant of God forever.” Rashi on 23:4, following the Gemara, explains that this admonition prohibits an Ammonite or Moabite man from marrying an Israelite woman. Why? For the Moabites, on account of Balaam’s advice to engage Israel in sexual impropriety at Ba’al Pe’or, as Rashi continues to explain in the next verse; for the Ammonites, on account of their stingy reception of the Israelites who quite peacefully requested to pass through their land and were nastily turned away. This prototype for maintaining a “healthy distance” from other nations is based on the precedent set by the nations in question while the Israelites were leaving Egypt - a precedent which established a cold, bitter relationship between these nations and Israel. Our response is to engage them in kind by not allowing them to join our community.
Most surprising is the final section of the parasha, which takes a stance completely opposite to that of eshet yifat toar when dealing with another nation. Instead of creating space for those of another nation who attempt to infiltrate our ranks, as with the war wives, by Amalek we are commanded to “erase the memory” of this nation. This command is also based on the precedent set by the Amalek-Israelite interaction when leaving Egypt:
Most surprising is the final section of the parasha, which takes a stance completely opposite to that of eshet yifat toar when dealing with another nation. Instead of creating space for those of another nation who attempt to infiltrate our ranks, as with the war wives, by Amalek we are commanded to “erase the memory” of this nation. This command is also based on the precedent set by the Amalek-Israelite interaction when leaving Egypt:
זכור את אשר עשה לך עמלק בדרך בצאתכם ממצרים:
אשר קרך בדרך ויזנב בך כל הנחשלים אחריך ואתה עיף ויגע ולא ירא אלקים:
והיה בהניח ה’ אלקיך לך מכל איביך מסביב בארץ אשר ה’ אלקיך נותן לך נחלה לרשתה תמחה את זכר עמלק מתחת השמים לא
תשכח:
Remember what Amalek did unto thee by the way as ye came forth out of Egypt; how he met thee by the way, and smote the hindmost of thee, all that were enfeebled in thy rear, when thou wast faint and weary; and he feared not God. Therefore it shall be, when the LORD thy God hath given thee rest from all thine enemies round about, in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance to possess it, that thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; thou shalt not forget.
*(Deuteronomy 25:17-19)
How do we explain the almost completely opposite attitude the parasha takes towards interactions with hostile nations? For some, we permit marriage even though their intent is our destruction; for others, we stay away, but at the same time do not cause harm; and for one in particular, we are essentially commanded to commit genocide!
The Netziv, in his Torah commentary Ha’Emek Davar, offers an interesting explanation of the rationale behind killing Amalek which may help in synthesizing the discordant approaches that appear throughout Ki Teitzei. The Netziv is puzzled by Rashi’s comment on Devarim 25:17, where Rashi explains that honesty in weights and measures (or lack thereof), the topic immediately preceding the command to wipe out Amalek, was in fact the reason the Israelites were attacked by Amalek on their way out of Egypt. The Netziv struggles with this concept: in the desert, there were no “weights and measures.” How is it that sinning in this capacity historically provided the impetus for an attack by Amalek?
On a psychological plane, Netziv suggests a fascinating answer. Cheating in weights and measures is the best way to steal because the customer has no realization that he or she is being cheated. In a sense, then, the only thing preventing someone from dealing dishonestly with weights and measures is an awareness of God - the realization that even though people do not notice one is stealing, nothing escapes Divine omniscience. Netziv concludes that to understand Rashi’s comment, one is not to understand literally cheating in weights and measures as the cause for the attack by Amalek. This sin is merely a symptom of a deeper, more inherent sin - lack of faith in God. The ultimate paradigm of this sin is the person who is more afraid for people to perceive him/her as a thief but gives no heed to the fact that his/her actions are all being noted by Divine eyes.
The Netziv then goes on to explain that there are three root sins which represent certain fundamental failings in Judaism and from which stem every other sin. Those three, unsurprisingly, are the “big three”: idolatry, illicit sexual relations, and bloodshed. But the reason that those are the big three, says the Netziv, is not because of the magnitude of each individual sin - but rather on account of the psychological failing each one quintessentially represents. Idolatry is the paradigm of lacking faith in God; illicit sexual relations is paradigmatic of letting one’s desires overcome his or her ideals; and bloodshed is paradigmatic of letting one’s anger take over in interpersonal(בן אדם לחבירו) relationships. The most “cardinal” of those three is idolatry, he says, since not believing in God - for a Jew - is the flaw in belief which cuts to the heart of Jewish identity.
In applying this concept to the pesukim about Amalek, Netziv says: אשר קרך בדרך - Amalek happened upon you. Amalek, who represent chaos, anarchy, and Godlessness in the world, do not view any event as a result of Divine Providence - but rather a result of chance. Now, to understand why Israel was attacked by Amalek, we must turn to the pesukim to identify the state of Israel’s spiritual health at the time of the attack. 23:5 concludes ambiguously that one of the pronouns in the sentence, either Amalek (indicated by קרך or ויזנב) or Israel (indicated by בך, אחריך, and ואתה), could be classified at the time as “not fearing God.” One’s inclination is to assume that Amalek is being modified by this description - but Netziv writes that in fact, “not fearing God” is a description of Israel’s status at that time. Though Rashi figuratively stated that Israel sinned with weights and measures, the real fault was lack of faith in God. For a people sustained so miraculously through Divine Providence to decide that they do not believe in God is a true blow to God’s name and does, indeed, warrant an attack by the people who proclaim that the world is governed by chance - Amalek. As Netziv explains, the one belief, above all, which a Jew must fight to preserve in this world - vigilantly - is, of course, belief in God.
The root of what these nations represented in their encounters with us while leaving Egypt can now indicate at least one reason for our varying responses to them. The nations employing eshet yifat toar, while utilizing promiscuity as a tactic, do not actually compel the Israelite men on the battlefield to commence illicit relations - they are primarily engaged in bloodshed, one of the three root sins in Netziv’s count but not the worst. Ammon and Moab, as well, represent immorality and violence, but do not come near the lack of faith in God which is espoused by Amalek. As a result, while we do not have the warmest of relationships with outside nations in the first two encounters enumerated by the parasha, when dealing with Amalek we are put into extreme spiritual “fight-or-flight” mode and must work our hardest to preserve our identity.
_____________________
*translation taken from mechon-mamre.org
On a psychological plane, Netziv suggests a fascinating answer. Cheating in weights and measures is the best way to steal because the customer has no realization that he or she is being cheated. In a sense, then, the only thing preventing someone from dealing dishonestly with weights and measures is an awareness of God - the realization that even though people do not notice one is stealing, nothing escapes Divine omniscience. Netziv concludes that to understand Rashi’s comment, one is not to understand literally cheating in weights and measures as the cause for the attack by Amalek. This sin is merely a symptom of a deeper, more inherent sin - lack of faith in God. The ultimate paradigm of this sin is the person who is more afraid for people to perceive him/her as a thief but gives no heed to the fact that his/her actions are all being noted by Divine eyes.
The Netziv then goes on to explain that there are three root sins which represent certain fundamental failings in Judaism and from which stem every other sin. Those three, unsurprisingly, are the “big three”: idolatry, illicit sexual relations, and bloodshed. But the reason that those are the big three, says the Netziv, is not because of the magnitude of each individual sin - but rather on account of the psychological failing each one quintessentially represents. Idolatry is the paradigm of lacking faith in God; illicit sexual relations is paradigmatic of letting one’s desires overcome his or her ideals; and bloodshed is paradigmatic of letting one’s anger take over in interpersonal(בן אדם לחבירו) relationships. The most “cardinal” of those three is idolatry, he says, since not believing in God - for a Jew - is the flaw in belief which cuts to the heart of Jewish identity.
In applying this concept to the pesukim about Amalek, Netziv says: אשר קרך בדרך - Amalek happened upon you. Amalek, who represent chaos, anarchy, and Godlessness in the world, do not view any event as a result of Divine Providence - but rather a result of chance. Now, to understand why Israel was attacked by Amalek, we must turn to the pesukim to identify the state of Israel’s spiritual health at the time of the attack. 23:5 concludes ambiguously that one of the pronouns in the sentence, either Amalek (indicated by קרך or ויזנב) or Israel (indicated by בך, אחריך, and ואתה), could be classified at the time as “not fearing God.” One’s inclination is to assume that Amalek is being modified by this description - but Netziv writes that in fact, “not fearing God” is a description of Israel’s status at that time. Though Rashi figuratively stated that Israel sinned with weights and measures, the real fault was lack of faith in God. For a people sustained so miraculously through Divine Providence to decide that they do not believe in God is a true blow to God’s name and does, indeed, warrant an attack by the people who proclaim that the world is governed by chance - Amalek. As Netziv explains, the one belief, above all, which a Jew must fight to preserve in this world - vigilantly - is, of course, belief in God.
The root of what these nations represented in their encounters with us while leaving Egypt can now indicate at least one reason for our varying responses to them. The nations employing eshet yifat toar, while utilizing promiscuity as a tactic, do not actually compel the Israelite men on the battlefield to commence illicit relations - they are primarily engaged in bloodshed, one of the three root sins in Netziv’s count but not the worst. Ammon and Moab, as well, represent immorality and violence, but do not come near the lack of faith in God which is espoused by Amalek. As a result, while we do not have the warmest of relationships with outside nations in the first two encounters enumerated by the parasha, when dealing with Amalek we are put into extreme spiritual “fight-or-flight” mode and must work our hardest to preserve our identity.
_____________________
*translation taken from mechon-mamre.org
